Trial reportWorld journal of gastroenterology2010
A randomized double-blind trial on perioperative administration of probiotics in colorectal cancer patients.
Trial report in World journal of gastroenterology, 2010. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 89 papers, 7 of them syntheses that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
89 citing papers in PubMed, 7 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 203 citations in OpenAlex.
- The Effects of Probiotics, Prebiotics and Synbiotics on Wound Infection: A Systematic Review.Current pharmaceutical biotechnology · 2025Pooled it
- Effect of probiotics and synbiotics on complications of wound infection after colorectal surgery: A meta-analysis.International wound journal · 2024Pooled it
- Perioperative Probiotics Application for Preventing Postoperative Complications in Patients with Colorectal Cancer: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.Medicina (Kaunas, Lithuania) · 2022Pooled it
- Pooled it
- Search and Selection of Probiotics That Improve Mucositis Symptoms in Oncologic Patients. A Systematic Review.Nutrients · 2019Pooled it
- Probiotics for preventing postoperative infection in colorectal cancer patients: a systematic review and meta-analysis.International journal of colorectal disease · 2019Pooled it
- Postoperative changes of the microbiome: are surgical complications related to the gut flora? A systematic review.BMC surgery · 2017Pooled it
- Expanding CYLD protein in NF-κβ/TNF-α signaling pathway in response to Lactobacillus acidophilus in non-metastatic rectal cancer patients.Medical oncology (Northwood, London, England) · 2023Trial
- Novel targets in rectal cancer by considering lncRNA-miRNA-mRNA network in response to Lactobacillus acidophilus consumption: a randomized clinical trial.Scientific reports · 2022Trial
- Pre-surgical Administration of Microbial Cell Preparation in Colorectal Cancer Patients: A Randomized Controlled Trial.World journal of surgery · 2016Trial
- Modulatory effects of Bifidobacterium longum BB536 on defecation in elderly patients receiving enteral feeding.World journal of gastroenterology · 2013Trial
- Review
- Comparative Immunomodulatory Profiles ofJournal of microbiology and biotechnology · 2026Article
- Microbiota in pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma progression and therapy: The hidden players.Chinese medical journal · 2026Review
- Microbiota in cancer: current understandings and future perspectives.Signal transduction and targeted therapy · 2026Review
- Microbiome dysbiosis and its modulation in cancer development, prevention and therapy.Frontiers in oncology · 2026Review
- Immuno-oncological Challenges and Chemoresistance in Veterinary Medicine: Probiotics as a New Strategic Tool.Probiotics and antimicrobial proteins · 2026Review
- HO-1 Up-regulation and PINK1/Parkin-Mediated Mitophagy Contribute to the Anti-tumor Effects of Metochalcone in Colorectal Cancer.Research (Washington, D.C.) · 2026Article
- Advancements in understanding tumor-resident bacteria and their application in cancer therapy.Military Medical Research · 2025Review
- The Anti-Inflammatory, Immunomodulatory, and Pro-Autophagy Activities of Probiotics for Colorectal Cancer Prevention and Treatment: A Narrative Review.Biomedicines · 2025Review
29 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
aimTo investigate whether probiotic bacteria, given perioperatively, might adhere to the colonic mucosa, reduce concentration of pathogens in stools, and modulate the local immune function.
methodsA randomized, double-blind clinical trial was carried out in 31 subjects undergoing elective colorectal resection for cancer. Patients were allocated to receive either a placebo (group A, n = 10), or a dose of 10(7) of a mixture of Bifidobacterium longum (BB536) and Lactobacillus johnsonii (La1) (group B, n = 11), or the same mixture at a concentration of 10(9) (group C, n = 10). Probiotics, or a placebo, were given orally 2 doses/d for 3 d before operation. The same treatment continued postoperatively from day two to day four. Stools were collected before treatment, during surgery (day 0) and 5 d after operation. During the operation, colonic mucosa samples were harvested to evaluate bacterial adherence and to assess the phenotype of dendritic cells (DCs) and lymphocyte subsets by surface antigen expression (flow cytometry). The presence of BB536 and La1 was evaluated by the random amplified polymorphism DNA method with specific polymerase chain reaction probes.
resultsThe three groups were balanced for baseline and surgical parameters. BB536 was never found at any time-points studied. At day 0, La1 was present in 6/10 (60%) patients in either stools or by biopsy in group C, in 3/11 (27.2%) in group B, and none in the placebo group (P = 0.02, C vs A). There was a linear correlation between dose given and number of adherent La1 (P = 0.01). The rate of mucosal colonization by enterobacteriacae was 30% (3/10) in C, 81.8% (9/11) in B and 70% (7/10) in A (P = 0.03, C vs B). The Enterobacteriacae count in stools was 2.4 (log10 scale) in C, 4.6 in B, and 4.5 in A (P = 0.07, C vs A and B). The same trend was observed for colonizing enterococci. La1 was not found at day +5. We observed greater expression of CD3, CD4, CD8, and naive and memory lymphocyte subsets in group C than in group A with a dose response trend (C > B > A). Treatment did not affect DC phenotype or activation, but after ex vivo stimulation with lipopolysaccharides, groups C and B had a lower proliferation rate compared to group A (P = 0.04). Moreover, dendritic phenotypes CD83-123, CD83-HLADR, and CD83-11c (markers of activation) were significantly less expressed in patients colonized with La1 (P = 0.03 vs not colonized).
conclusionLa1, but not BB536, adheres to the colonic mucosa, and affects intestinal microbiota by reducing the concentration of pathogens and modulates local immunity.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.